Trevor Clarke
South Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“For recruitment to the current Youth Assembly and on the basis of research on the youth demographic in Northern Ireland, a minimum of 10 young people with disabilities were sought in order to be representative of the data. Of the 90 young people appointed to the Youth Assembly, 18 have a disability.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Youth Assembly regularly uses social media to promote its work, and, when preparing for a new mandate, targeted multimedia recruitment campaigns are used to engage young people and encourage participation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission also has an apprenticeship and placement framework that provides the opportunity for people with a disability to avail themselves of short-term supported placements.”
“In 2025, 770 tours were delivered and the number of events hosted in Parliament Buildings almost doubled to 583. <BR /> <BR />Our Education Service promotes its programmes to schools and colleges through an annual September mail-out, outlining provision for the relevant Key Stages, including a focus on inclusive engagement for children wi…”
“Mr Speaker, I may require an extra minute to answer the question. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission's school work experience programme is facilitated through a partnership between our internal education services team and an organisation called Futures For All, a social mobility charity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I may need an extra minute to answer the question, and I thank the Member for it. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission's public engagement strategy 2025-27 aims to increase awareness, improve understanding and enable participation in the work of the Assembly.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,151 lines we hold for Trevor Clarke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 24.
“As someone who represents a constituency that is prone to flooding, I have seen at first hand the damage and despair that flooding brings to households and businesses. Of course, there is a significant cost not just to our constituents but to the Executive, given the commitment that they have made to help in cases of flooding. It is important that we talk to developers about means of introducing cost-effective and efficient SUDs schemes. I look forward to having those discussions. The interactions that the Deputy Chair and I had on SUDS were useful. A development was allowed to go ahead, and a problem was identified soon after it commenced. It is unfortunate that the Department had to pick up the bill in that case, but there have been lessons learned from that that were very enlightening.”
“It appears logical to amalgamate the water resource management plans and the drought management plans into one overarching plan. In times in which there are considerable financial constraints, I believe it to be a responsibility to seek to alleviate as much red tape and bureaucracy as possible without the dilution of controls and governance. Tying the new water resource and supply resilience plan in with the price control period is also a sensible move. <BR /> <BR />I commented in Committee that the way in which clause 3 is framed is really future-proofing. I commend the Department on that. It will introduce a great deal of flexibility and discretion further down the line. <BR /> <BR />I suspect that there will be a great deal of debate around the issue of sustainable urban drainage systems measures.”
“I am sure that, as we move forward, there will be some debate from others on that particular issue. However, I welcome the commitment from the Executive and the Minister.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in my capacity as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. The Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny in a session on 3 June, and the Deputy Chair and I were afforded an in-depth briefing at an early stage as well. I thank the Minister and his officials for that opportunity. It was a very in-depth briefing, and we had an extra session on SUDS that, for my part, I found very useful. <BR /> <BR />The Minister outlined the principles of the Bill in his opening remarks. and I do not intend going into great detail on these today. Very obviously, the Executive have a continuing commitment not to apply water charges to domestic customers, and the Bill will extend this Programme for Government commitment until 31 March 2017.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, and I welcome the scrutiny of those officials. I am sure that he, like me, will welcome the fact that one council group has, through Arc21, come forward with a proposal to deal with the waste. Can I take it from the Minister that, whatever recommendation his officials make on that application, he will sign this off in concurrence with that recommendation?”
“Following on from your answer to Mr McMullan, in which you talked about the difficulties of local issues, is it not time for your Department, Minister, to drive towards having a single waste authority in Northern Ireland to bring all the waste together, as opposed to having three separate organisations doing the same job?”
“I will be very brief. The Committee for Regional Development considered this item of subordinate legislation at SL1 stage at its meeting on 25 March 2015. The Committee stated at that time that it was content with the merits of the policy proposals. The draft statutory rule was considered by the Committee on 27 May, when members stated that they had no objections to the rule. The Committee for Regional Development's position in that regard has not changed. We support the motion.”
“I thank the Minister for that. I am also aware, Minister, that how the cost of that project overran from the initial estimate was subject to a PAC report. Will your departmental officials pursue those involved in that contract, given that something that has only been open for three years has fallen into disrepair and that so much more was spent on it than was originally estimated?”
“They are necessary for the economic, environmental and social development of the Northern Ireland economy. I therefore welcome and support the motion.”
“It is only right and proper that I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development on his decision to re-categorise his bid in June monitoring as "inescapable" in respect of the essential role that these organisations play. In debates last week, the Committee attracted some criticism for not offering alternatives to departmental decisions. This is yet another example of where the Committee has offered alternative solutions, and it is one which we as a Committee very much support. <BR /> <BR />The money in these Estimates is required to allow the Department for Regional Development to plan, develop and manage sustainable transportation networks and continue to contribute to the health and well-being of communities through the provision of clean and safe water and sewerage works.”
“We are scheduled to receive the Translink accounts very soon and will forensically examine these as we have in the past. It is no secret that we will focus in on the level of reserves — reserves, which, unlike those of the community transport sector and Disability Action, have continually, over the years, been bolstered by public funds. If it is right and proper for the Department to tell rural community transport providers to use their reserves, it is equally correct that private organisations that are supported by public funding are asked to do likewise. <BR /> <BR />I briefly referred to Disability Action and community transport.”
“This track is essential to the continued economic and social development of the north-west, and it is imperative that connectivity between the two largest cities in Northern Ireland is maintained and enhanced. However, whilst we continue to be supportive of the project and look forward to seeing it completed, as a scrutiny Committee, we cannot ignore the doubling of the budget through the incompetence of officials in the Department for Regional Development and Translink. <BR /> <BR />The Committee will soon complete its inquiry into the mishandling of this exercise and would hope that the House will support the conclusions that it has made to date. It will also continue to scrutinise Translink, as indeed it will scrutinise NIW, to ensure that the public purse is being used to the most appropriate means.”
“<BR /> <BR />The next two highest allocations are in respect of railway services and road-passenger services. I would like to make a couple of points on these areas. First, we welcome the announcement of a new Translink chief executive and wish the current chief executive, David Strahan, all the best in his future endeavours. David brought a great deal of propriety and much-needed transparency to the role. I would hope that his successor, Chris Conway, will continue in the same vein as David. We look forward to working with Chris to ensure that we have a transport operator that is efficient and fit for purpose. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the Committee is unanimous in its support of the Coleraine to Londonderry rail project and has shown its support over the years.”
“I note from tomorrow's Order Paper that the Minister for Regional Development will introduce the Water and Sewerage Services Bill. It is intended that the Second Stage will be scheduled shortly, allowing the Committee to receive it before the summer recess. The Bill will extend the Executive's Programme for Government commitment towards non-domestic water charges and also seeks means to reduce the risk of flooding through the use of sustainable drainage systems. As the House will be aware, the Executive have previously had to invest significant amounts in compensation to homeowners who were impacted by the flash floods of recent years. It is therefore important that we re-examine the means to reduce or negate the risk of flooding. I look forward to receiving the Bill into the Committee shortly.”
“During the plenary debates and in Committee last week, a great deal of attention focused on the lack of investment in roads and water infrastructure. It is worth noting, therefore, that the net total DEL is significantly higher in these two areas. The Committee would therefore expect the Department to put these to the best and most effective use to delay or defer adding to the roads structural backlog and the risk of infraction proceedings, particularly in respect of the Ballycastle waste water treatment works. <BR /> <BR />Of course, a large proportion of the allocation to Northern Ireland Water is in respect of the Executive's Programme for Government commitment to ensure that there are no domestic water charges during this mandate.”
“We were critical of the Department's over-reliance on the in-year monitoring, and, subsequently, the Committee agreed to write to the Minister of Finance to ask whether a balance can be achieved between establishing appropriate baseline allocations and in-year monitoring bids.”
“I commend the Department for being very successful in acquiring funding through those programmes. Equally, I commend the Executive and the Minister of Finance for providing the match funding for those allocations. It would be remiss of me if I did not commend the Committee for the work that it does in encouraging departmental applications for funding and, indeed, as it has done in the past and will continue to do, negotiating and supporting those applications directly in the European Parliament and the EU Commission. <BR /> <BR />Last week, we had the opportunity to debate in the House, and indeed at the Committee, the impact of the current departmental budget allocations.”
“As I said, those are not insignificant totals; totals that may be supported through in-year monitoring rounds. It is worth noting that, whilst the Department continues to bemoan the reductions to its budgets and bandies about figures of 15% reductions, that provision is only 1·04% lower than the final net provision for 2014-15. <BR /> <BR />It is imperative that the Department for Regional Development manages these totals in a prudent yet imaginative fashion. It is encouraging, for example, to see allocations in respect of the EU INTERREG programme, because the Committee has for a long time encouraged the Department to make best use of the funding available through that and other EU programmes, such as the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).”
“However, it is therefore imperative that the Department manages those budgets effectively in order to achieve its aim; namely, improving the quality of life for everyone in Northern Ireland through the provision, maintenance and enhancement of a range of essential infrastructure services. That role will, in the coming months, also be enhanced to ensure that the Department continues to shape Northern Ireland's long-term strategic development. <BR /> <BR />The resources being committed today are not insignificant: table 1·3 (a) and (b) of the Estimates, as referred to in the motion, shows sums of just under £306 million for resources and £414 million in cash. That represents approximately 45% of the total resource requirement and 50% of the net cash requirement.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in my capacity as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. I thank my colleague the Minister of Finance for bringing the motion to the House today. I note that the role of the Estimates is set out the detailed spending plans for the Northern Ireland Departments. I welcome the detail, as it is proving more and more difficult — as we debated last week — to get that level of detail from the Department for Regional Development. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that this financial year is going to be a difficult one for the Department for Regional Development and, indeed, for all Executive Departments, as the austerity measures coming from Westminster make themselves even more known to us.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer, and I welcome it. The Committee visited the area while it was waiting for the long-awaited announcement on the railway line. However, given that the costs have ranged from £20 million to £46 million, are you content, Minister, that the Minister will be able to live within his budget means?”
“That does not lend itself to strategic planning, nor is it good for fundamental planning. <BR /> <BR />Whilst others want to characterise this as a DUP motion, I am glad that other Members spoke today. It emphasised the fact that this is a Committee motion. We want to see better financial planning in DRD, and we want it to stop raiding the coffers of the most vulnerable, whether it be through community transport, our roads, grass cutting or street lights. I support the motion.”
“When my colleague was on his feet, he forgot to say that we could give an example that, rather than leaving the potholes in disrepair, and instead of taking £10 million off Transport NI to give to NI Water, maybe more of a torch should be shone on NI Water to find out what is going wrong, because it raided the coffers of Transport NI. That is the difficulty that many of us have. It was not about insufficient budget, but about how the Minister and his officials allocated that budget. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is not opposed to investment. It is opposed to the ad hoc begging-bowl approach that has been adopted by the Department.”
“The Committee has said that previously. Our concern today is that, looking at the current budget and this current round, there has been more bid for in this in-year monitoring round, if it is added to what he has already got, than the Minister got in total last year. I think the Minister was being disingenuous as he forgot to say that not one member of the Committee that day spoke against the budgets that were being made. Everyone supported the budgets being made, because we understand the pressures that the Minister is under.”
“Maybe he should follow his processes, rather than being critical of others. <BR /> <BR />David McNarry spoke of his pride at sitting in the Committee and of the months of frustration caused by the evasive evidence of departmental officials. <BR /> <BR />I do not really know what John McCallister said, but it seemed that he was cosying up to his ex-partners in the Ulster Unionist Party and jumping to the defence of the Minister. Maybe we are going to see something there over the coming months. Much has been said today about elections. Maybe we will see John try to cast favour to Mike to get back into the wings of the Ulster Unionist Party. <BR /> <BR />The Minister spoke about the process and blamed the Executive for the over-reliance on in-year monitoring. I have to give it to the Minister that he recognises that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mike Nesbitt talked about the constructive criticisms in the Committee, but he forgot to mention that the Committee came up with the cycling inquiry, as well as integrated transport, for example. Mike criticised me for talking for four minutes and 22 seconds. I forgot to start the clock when Mike Nesbitt got up, but he criticised the Committee for tabling motions in the House. Woe is us, as a Committee, putting down a motion to talk about DRD. He spent most of his contribution talking about OFMDFM business. Maybe he should table a motion to talk about what he wants to talk about in OFMDFM. I think this Committee is doing a reasonably good job at holding the Minister to account and tabling motions, because that is what it is supposed to do. He used half of his slot to talk about OFMDFM.”
“I am very happy to do that now. If Mr Beggs acknowledged that yesterday, that is good and proper and fine, and I accept it. However, today he did not. He outlined the valuable work that Translink does, but he forgot about disability transport today, he forgot about the community transport and he forgot to mention that they were cut by 33% when his Minister only lost 15% of his budget. <BR /> <BR />Jim Allister suggested that the Minister was being picked on by his Executive colleagues, and then he went on to talk about elections. This is Jim "runaway" Allister, who did not even run in an election. It is the Jim Allister who talked about how the sky was going to fall in on Northern Ireland years ago. Well, Jim, look outside: the sky is still there. The sky is still there, Jim.”
“He was critical of the reserves held by the community transport sector and Disability Action transport. That is £80 million versus a few hundred thousand pounds in the community sector. <BR /> <BR />I also want to point out that, when Roy Beggs was on his feet, he was very supportive —everyone on the Committee has also been supportive — of Translink. The Committee may be critical, but it welcomes the fact that Translink delivers a good service in our constituencies. It is disappointing that he did not say that yesterday about community transport or the Disability Action transport service. Today he was very quick to point out about Translink, a publicly funded body —”
“He also covered the issue of Translink's reserves. <BR /> <BR />Cathal Ó hOisín spoke about the historical lack of investment in the infrastructure of the north-west and the difficulties in trying to get information out of officials. <BR /> <BR />Joe Byrne spoke of the knock-on impact of the cuts to Departments' budgets. He said that the Department has a false sense of security through its reliance on in-year monitoring. <BR /> <BR />Roy Beggs said that the Minister was asking Translink to use its reserves. He forgot to say that it was the Minister's Department that propped up that organisation to the tune of £80 million of reserves. It was not until those reserves reached £80 million that the level of reserves was highlighted and the company was pushed on that matter. That relates to what Roy talked about yesterday.”
“I brought that up because I realised, after he sat down, that the Member had made the wrong choice of words. <BR /> <BR />Ross Hussey spoke of his opposition to the motion, calling it "party political". I emphasise that the motion was supported, as you now know, Mr Speaker, by all the political parties on the Committee, not just my own. <BR /> <BR />Chris Lyttle spoke of the over-reliance on in-year monitoring, especially for essential services. He also spoke about the risk of infraction proceedings, in particular for Ballycastle and Belfast lough. He called on the Minister to show leadership and not to remain passive. <BR /> <BR />Alex Easton also spoke about the DRD's over-reliance on in-year monitoring. He queried whether the Department has applied significant rates variation to NI Water.”
“I will summarise Members' contributions before I conclude. Declan McAleer spoke of the cuts to street lighting, gully clearing and pothole repairs, particularly for vulnerable people, despite the Department having a significant budget. <BR /> <BR />John Dallat spoke of his concerns over infraction proceedings and the possible penalties that will arise from them. He was also critical of board members. He perhaps forgot to mention that, although Translink had its difficulties, the Minister extended the life of its board and did not dispose of its current members. John also mentioned the nine drivers. I do not think that he meant exactly what he said, which was that we should forget about them. I think that he realised, after he sat down, that that was not his intention.”
“On a point of order. I seek clarification and your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. At which point did I ask for the resignation of the Minister? I know that another Member did seek that, but I do not think that my name should be associated with those comments.”
“You did well in North Antrim as well, Jim. You ran away, Jim.”
“In his contribution, maybe the Member will remind the previous Member to speak that this is a Committee motion, not a DUP one, and that it was supported by every party on that Committee.”
“That is shown in the fact that it will most likely exceed its budgetary control limits because of a reliance on the public purse bailing it out to the tune of £20 million for the release of value from Belfast harbour, despite not being assured of that funding. <BR /> <BR />It is schoolboy budgeting, and it is not about the Minister. As you will hear from the contributions today, it is focused on the Department's failings and is about its failures in procurement and its inability to challenge adequately and to plan strategically. I have no doubt that the Department's response will see the Minister cast again in his role as Oliver Twist, when he will ask, "Can I have more?" How does that inspire confidence?”
“Instead, their proposed method is to wait and see whether the European Commission comes after them, at which point they will draw up an action plan that states that they intend to rectify that problem. The plan, however, is missing one key component: where will the Department get the £750 million needed to implement that plan? It is another game of budgetary Russian roulette. How does that inspire confidence in the Department? <BR /> <BR />The motion is not about the current budget allocation but the endemic failure of the Department to manage its budgets over a number of years. It is about a Department that takes unwarranted risks with its budget, with the public purse being its safety net.”
“I am sure that the Minister, prompted by his officials, will tell the House of the great capital investment that has been made and is planned for Northern Ireland Water. Whilst it is true that there is a significant investment programme in our water infrastructure, the Department still faces severe pressure and the very real potential of infraction proceedings because of the lack of investment in waste water treatment facilities, particularly those in Ballycastle and Belfast lough. The latter is particularly dire and poses a threat not just of infraction proceedings for pollution of the lough but, significantly, of economic investment in Belfast. That, however, seems to be the one area where the Minister and his Department fail to revert to their normal approach of running to the Finance Minister with their begging bowl.”
“<BR /> <BR />How does the Minister inspire confidence in his Department while his officials and his Department continue to support their pet project, Translink? They continue to prop up an organisation that, in the words of the current chief executive, will cease to operate in two years' time if the public purse does not continue to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into it. That organisation has consistently botched procurement exercises such as the Coleraine to Londonderry track and turned down a tender bid of £27 million because it did not represent value for money but comes out with a suggestion last week of £46 million.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister and his officials have consistently ignored this advice, instead opting for the budgetary version of Russian roulette, meaning that our street lights are out, the safety of drivers and vulnerable road users is being fatally compromised and the risk of homes and businesses being flooded because gullies and drains are not being emptied or cleaned has increased. That is not because of the hand that he and his officials believe that they have been dealt. This was the strategy of his officials long before the budget allocations were even made. This was an announcement in the press before Christmas, and it is what he and his Department have now imposed on Northern Ireland.”
“That is borne out by the fact that, since he became Minister, in-year budgeting has resulted in a shortfall of some £160 million in the required road maintenance budget. That could have been negated had the Minister accepted the Committee recommendation that he move away from his Oliver Twist approach to securing funds and the recommendation of the industry, which also addressed the issue. Specifically, the likes of the Quarry Products Association Northern Ireland (QPANI) consistently called for a baseline approach to his budget.”
“The motion identifies four main areas of concern: over-reliance on in-year monitoring; Translink ceasing to trade in two years; infraction proceedings; and a departmental budget in danger of exceeding its control limits. These are not figments of the Committee’s imagination — they are a reality. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, Mr Beggs asked for examples of where the Committee had suggested alternatives, and I will give him an example of where the Committee went beyond its statutory responsibilities to help the Department. We have argued for a long time that the practice of reliance on in-year monitoring for funding was filled with folly. It is a successful tactic when the coffers are overflowing, but, as the Minister is finding out, when the purse strings are snapped shut, it is a foolhardy approach to budgeting.”
“Our role is not to do the job of the Minister but to scrutinise his Department, policies and budget. On Sunday, the Minister bemoaned the fact that it was interesting that none of the major spending Departments currently operated by Sinn Féin or the DUP would face the same level of scrutiny from the Assembly and its Committees that he is facing this week. I welcome the fact that he believes there to be a high level of scrutiny by this Committee, and I welcome the fact that this scrutiny has been successful. I also welcome the fact that the Committee is unanimous in its desire to continue holding the Department to account. <BR /> <BR />I will now address the motion before the House today.”
“<BR /> <BR />During the 'Sunday Politics' programme, the debate yesterday and, I suspect, the same tired contributions today, it has been stated that the Committee never offered alternatives to the budget proposals. Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and strand one, paragraph 9, of the Belfast Agreement very clearly set out the Committee's role in the scrutiny of the Department, which is to advise the Minister in the formulation of policy, to scrutinise these policies and ask to:”
“That was yet another attempt by the Minister to deflect the established and continuous criticism of his Department. <BR /> <BR />There was muted opposition to the motion from the Minister's party colleague on the Committee, not because he was opposed to the substance of the motion but because it was a criticism of his Minister. The Committee did not divide, and the overwhelming majority of the Committee, comprising representation from my party, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and UKIP, agreed the motion. The only dissenting voice, on the basis that he could not vote for a motion that criticised his party’s only Minister, was that of the UUP member. That is not party politics. Rather, it is a Statutory Committee voicing its opposition to a Department’s draconian budget.”
“There were limited time slots between now and recess to table essential motions, a situation exacerbated by the fact that the Minister has scheduled a visit to Latvia, as I understand it. Yes, Members asked that the Minister attend the Committee to brief it on the impact of his flawed budget, but only at his earliest convenience. It was his private office that first suggested a date later in the month, but then came back to suggest 10 June. The Minister's office, not the Committee, asked for this week. It is disingenuous, therefore, for the Minister to suggest that this is evidence of some type of a purge against him. When asked whether he was embarrassed about today's motion, he suggested that there was :”
“It is the Minister, not the Committee, that has made this about him. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I will address some of the allegations that have been made in that programme and yesterday during the debate on Disability Action and the rural community transport budgets. The scheduling of business in this place has never been an easy task. We have to take into account the Executive business brought to the House, the Minister's diary and, indeed, the Committee’s forward work programme, which includes Executive and private Members' primary legislation.”
“The motion asks the Assembly to note that the Committee for Regional Development has lost confidence in the Department’s ability to manage its budgets. Somehow the Minister has misconstrued this as a personal attack on him and has reverted to type by running to the press to plead his case, as was evident in his appearance on the 'Sunday Politics' programme at the weekend. This is a continuation of his paper-politics tactics to avoid debate in the House and at Committee by making announcements in the press, such as he did when he published his draft budget, when he allowed Translink to announce a fare increase before Christmas and, at the weekend, when, yet again, he did the House a disservice by debating the motion in the press before giving Members the opportunity to speak on the matter.”
“The Minister did not take interventions, but he spoke about the organisations signing their agreements and moving forward. I want to remind the House and the Minister, who forgot to remind the House, that they signed those agreements on the basis of moving to a reduced service. They did not sign them in the full knowledge that it would be business as usual; they signed them in the knowledge that there would be a substantial reduction in the services provided.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about how we were expecting cuts. I am sure that the Member will also remember the presentation from representatives of the community transport sector, who said that they had asked for approximately 10% less but were actually going to provide more runs. So they voluntarily suggested a cut, but obviously the cut went much further.”
“<BR /> <BR />Translink provides an excellent service in many urban towns and villages. However, the DATS service is a lifeline to people in the most rural, isolated and vulnerable areas. Since the decision to slash its budget, many old and vulnerable people in my constituency have contacted our office about the difficulty that they now have because of cuts to the services and changes that the service providers are having to make because of those cuts. We will hear others from the Minister's party jump to his defence, but the Minister did not lose one third of his budget. He did not lose 1% of his budget. However, the Minister has decided to attack the most vulnerable and take one third off them.”